· The co-operative only funds research on one drug at a time
o If you are going to go up against an entity who opposes you and they have a war chest of money the only strategy you can enact is a focused one
o If you want donors to lobby against injustices you can’t confuse them about which drug being tested is under fire. Keep the business simple
· The co-operative have limited partnerships or ventures with outside entities
o The purpose of this is to help prevent corruption and situations of ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine’
o The funding of testing has to come purely from donors and not outside entities. The cooperatives’ donors are purely interested in the cure but outside entities may have other motives
· All research testing is to be completed in-house and the facility funded 100% by donors
o Stand alone to help prevent corruption
o The reputation of the co-operative is independent of other entities
o If the co-operative didn’t have its own facilities (like lab rooms, hospital rooms, etc.) then a cure blocking technique could be to block access to publicly available facilities. This technique could slow or even halt testing
o In-house testing also reduces the risk of research test tampering
· The co-operative is not for profit. Donors know in advance of making a donation if a cure is found it will be offered to the public at cost, even to people who did not donate to the co-operative. There is no money to be made. The pure goal of the co-operative to find a cure and not to make a monetary return
o The end goal is purely the cure
o There is no money to be made in today’s model of donating to cancer organizations so there should be no money to be made in an improved business model either
o If there was money to be made larger donors would feel they deserve more of the profits then the smaller donors. We have to take money completely out of the equation
· The co-operative operate as a simple business with simple and transparent banking procedures
o Testing only one drug at a time allows for a simple focused structure with minimal employees needed; and makes those employees more accountable too
o There is more clarity and trust in anything simple verses complex (think of derivative market: it is so complex it is hard to trust)
o A business like this will hold a lot of dormant money and bankers will present the pros of the next big investment vehicle to multiply the money ten times over; but if the vehicle is anything other than a straight interest baring note there is risk involved. Complex investment vehicles change absolute dollars to relative guesstimates at the total dollars. The world’s financial markets are currently not stable due to the high levels of complexity and it would be wise to stay out of them
· The co-operative financial statements are audited yearly and made public
o For clarity and trust purposes
· The co-operative preferably not be deemed a ‘registered charity’….
o This condition is interesting and defining it probably goes beyond my level of expertise but here goes: if you are a registered charity you have to operate within the laws set for registered charities. Today’s laws are quite reasonable but they can change over time and limit registered charities’ allowable actions. This is true for any type of business but if I were setting up a business where I knew in advance the headwinds would be so strong it might make the goal impossible I would try my hardest to stay out of any kind of ‘box’ of rules some entity could place on me in the future.
o Staying out of the registered charity ‘box’ means you are more like a not-for-profit pharmaceutical company owned by multiple owners. A not-for-profit pharmaceutical company should have the same laws as for-profit pharmaceutical companies and thus future law changes would affect the whole pharmaceutical industry – not just a not-for-profit pharmaceutical company. If you are going to be in any box be in the same one as your competitors
o It would mean donors would not receive tax receipts
o I personally would rather find a cure then get a tax receipt, for this strategy to work I hope others feel the same way. Maybe the trick would be to go after a large volume of small contributions rather than a smaller volume of large contributions
The Stickman Model is simply an idea to improve cancer research’s existing business structure. The ‘what if the boogieman wanted to block a cure’ scenarios are not based on any real truths of corruption; these made up scenarios were just used to help identify the current system’s structural flaws and to create a new business model resilient to the boogieman.
Lastly, I apologize for my ‘popcorn and candy’ remark. Today’s cancer charities are wonderful and do great work. There are charters and rules in place preventing charities from being irresponsible with donations; and there are wonderful and hardworking people working for them. With this remark I was just pushing you down a road trying to get you to believe in my biased conclusion which is: there is a flaw in the structure of these charities, not a flaw in the charities themselves.
Now the Stickman Model is public information. You have my permission to use this idea and start a stickman co-operative, and I hope you do. I think this idea is a good one and I hope one day it leads to a cheap cure for cancer. Good luck.
Disclaimer: This is an opinion site. It is non-factual and completely made up on a whim. This site is simply dedicated to solving non-existent problems. If you want the facts on cancer it is homework time. I am not going to tell you how much cancer is worth today, go do your homework. You will trust the answer more from your own sources then you would trust sources I find for you.
Continue Reading the Next Page - Worthy of Testing – DCA
Back to the Top of the Page